San Miguel commissioners continue debate on deed‑restriction fixes, offer reversion options to owners

San Miguel County commissioners continued a lengthy discussion Aug. 20 on how to correct past handling of deed‑restricted housing and whether to give owners options to revert to earlier restriction forms. Staff presented a draft resolution (referred to in the meeting as Resolution 20‑25‑23) that would give some owners who purchased since June 1, 2022, a choice: stay on their current restriction, adopt the previous owner’s restriction if different, or revert to the 2016 version of the county’s affordable‑housing covenant. Staff proposed notifying owners around Sept. 15 and asked for responses within 60 days; commissioners suggested extending that response period to 90 days.

The county framed the exercise as attempting to correct situations in which buyers were required or steered to more restrictive covenants after purchase. Maura (county staff) told the board the county’s research showed the 2016 covenant had removed a problematic Section 11 that existed in the 2010 version, and so offering the 2016 covenant as an option for reversion would address many of the substantive complaints. “So this is our continued discussion from our, originally, our July 16 meeting … and I would ask Maura to please interrupt, wherever you see fit,” a staff member said during the presentation.

The proposal separates owners into groups for different offers: (1) owners who transferred since 06/01/2022 (the “three‑year window”) would get three options, including reversion to the 2016 covenant; (2) owners on covenants who transferred before 06/01/2022 would be able either to stay on their current restriction, revert to the prior owner’s deed restriction (with specified supplemental definitions if reverting to land‑use‑code language), or revert to the 2016 covenant; (3) owners currently on the county land‑use‑code (LUC) deed restriction would be offered a choice to remain on the LUC or move to the 2016 covenant; and (4) owners under project‑specific covenants (for example, special agreements tied to a particular subdivision) would generally not be offered a reversion because those covenants are project‑specific and rely on separate funding/agreements.

Staff outlined next steps: mail individualized notices to property owners (with the county’s current understanding of which restriction applies to each property), conduct public education and HOA outreach, collect owner responses, then begin a refreshed compliance process with the San Miguel Regional Housing Authority (SMRHA). Staff proposed that notices go out on or about Sept. 15 and that responses be due in 60 days; several commissioners and members of the public asked staff to change that to 90 days to allow owners time to review options and seek legal or other advice.

Public comment was extensive and often emotional. Dozens of residents — including longtime Lawson Hill and Aldasoro homeowners and other deed‑restricted owners — urged the board either to restore original LUC rights for all owners platted under the LUC or to provide broader reversion rights than the staff draft proposed. Several residents said they believed county staff and prior administrations had misled or pressured owners into signing more restrictive covenants; others urged caution to avoid creating loopholes that would allow buyers with outside wealth to capture deed‑restricted homes. Residents who spoke included Shelley Duplant, Brettley Danner, Lee Rufa, Jake McTigue and Ginny Gordon. A number of commenters asked that notices be explicit — i.e., include the buyer’s current restriction, the prior restriction (if any) and the draft 2016 covenant — so owners wouldn’t need to research their file histories to understand their options.

Commissioner Lance Waring disclosed a personal ownership interest in deed‑restricted property and recused himself from the discussion; Waring left the room during the item. Another commissioner also disclosed a potential conflict and excused themselves. Staff reminded the board that any final action taken as the County Housing Authority would require a favorable vote by the remaining commissioners sitting in that role.

No board vote was held Aug. 20. Commissioners directed staff to refine the draft resolution language (notably the “employee” / income definitions that staff had adapted from the covenant for any LUC reversion), to expand outreach and education, and to return with a revised draft and schedule for action. The item was continued to the board’s next regular meeting on Sept. 3, 2025.

Why it matters: deed‑restricted homes are a key element of San Miguel County’s workforce housing strategy. The county has hundreds of deed‑restricted properties created across multiple legal instruments (the historic Land Use Code, later recorded covenants, and project‑specific covenants). Owners, applicants and county staff have differed for years about which rules applied and when; this process is the county’s effort to resolve that uncertainty and reestablish a consistent compliance procedure. The decision affects who may buy or continue to occupy deed‑restricted homes, how the county enforces eligibility, and whether past procedural errors are corrected.

What’s next: staff will revise the draft resolution language (including the purchase/continuing‑owner income definitions), prepare individualized notices for owners, and return to the Board of County Commissioners on Sept. 3 for further action. If the board adopts the resolution, staff anticipates a county‑administered notice campaign and a subsequent compliance review by SMRHA and county staff.